In any monarchy worldwide, has there ever been a series of at least 3 kings who were unquestionably good?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Has there ever been an unbroken series of unquestionably good kings from the same line?
>5 Good Emperors of Rome.
>The 3 Great Emperors of the Qing Dynasty.
>two examples in some of the longest living monarchies ever
>best series of Roman leaders were all elected/adopted due to merit rather than birth.
>goalpost moving
Qianlong was not unquestionably good. His fabled 'Ten Campaigns' include one entirely unecessary one against an obscure hill tribe that cost more than the entire revenue of China. His corrupt favourite was found in the next reign to have gold in his house worth 15 times the annual revenue. He left the treasury empty for his son.
It depends on what certain people consider "good". Those Roman emperors, Trajan especially, had a lot of people butchered and enslaved.
Nah Graham was pretty unquestionably good. No one is talking about ethics here, but skill and whether they were of benefit to the population of the country. Which he was.
Fpbp
Only Aurelius bears any blame there. And even then he, personally, still ruled ably.
This is a nuclear fricking take.
Being edgy is not a personality.
You can't both think Jefferson and Washington were actually good without being blinded totally by American brain damage. Their policies and motivations were directly opposed.
>Graham
Trajan. I'm phone posting
The 5 good emperors are all overrated and directly caused the crisis of the third century
Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Aethelstan.
Phillip Augustus, Louis the Lion, Louis the Saint
That's only for England and France, there are swathes more, why do you act as if 3 generations of good monarchs is so uncanny.
The Severans are who fricked it all up.
The only good Qing emperors were Kangxi and Qianlong, and Qianlong got fat and corrupt near the end of his reign and did nothing to prepare China for the coming of the West.
France's had multiple successions of good kings
Name 3 in succession
Good Good Kinslayer
Did the Kinslaying weaken the state or just his personal affairs? I know nothing of him
He was succeed by Basil II so I guess not, but its still not good.
Still it brought instability and he was lucky Basil was so strong of a ruler.
Henry IV, Louis XIII, Louis XIV
Or Philippe Auguste, Louis VIII, Louis IX (arguably the whole range from Louis VII to Philippe III was good).
Henry IV never ruled france
Care to elaborate?
It’s not because Sully did 90% of the work that the king didn’t have a final say.
Tried looking through my own states history, Brandenburg.
At most you can find two good kings in succession and maybe a normal one for the Hohenzollern days.
The normal one sometimes just turns out to be a bit too indulging with spending but still. The guy before the soldier king was rather meh in his spending.
The Askanier had a pretty good record, basically the first three guys ruling over Brandenburg ruled and expanded it well. Although that period is again so far back that we probably just know too little about their frickups or just know from them through their acts in building up the country.
Also not technically a king yet but let's not be picky about titles.
First 3 Komnemnos
Yeah
They are Emperor/Basileus
Basil 2/Nikephoros Phocas/John Tzimiskes
In any democracy worldwide, has there ever been a series of at least 3 elected heads of government who were unquestionably good?
Good by what metric?
This. Some idiots on this thread think a complete egomaniac like Louis XIV would be a good king. Famous, yes, not good. Good king would be one wise, virtuous and ruled for the benefit of his people. The vast majority of kings in history are nothing more than pompus tyrants, if we want to call them what they really are.
For all his faults Louis XIV was actually a good king. He managed to stabilise the country’s governance system in an extremely cunning way, saw the value of overseas colonies and selected extremely capable ministers. Trying (and partly managing) to break the Habsburg encirclement was also a less petty long term investment than it seems.
Had Louis XV been less of a failure, Louis XIV would probably be remembered as a great monarch, a bit like Heraclius had the arab invasions not happened.
>Louis XIV would probably be remembered as a great monarch
He is, or at least he would be if waging wars was still seen as a positive instead of a negative.
You need to be moronic to think Louis XIV was a bad king.
For me "good king" has a much more grandiose meaning than being a capable administrator. To be a good king for me, you need to be more than a map painter.
>Some idiots on this thread think a complete egomaniac like Louis XIV would be a good king.
Louis XIV was the best king France had since the middle ages, and I will not let him be slandered.
Google "Pendulm Effect"
Mao, Deng, Frogface, Jintao, Jiping
FDR
Truman
Eisenhower
… yes, actually. You also had Kennedy and LBJ right after Ike. Not that big of a fan of the Vietnam bullshit, but otherwise those two weren’t bad either.
i miss being white
Literally all 3 sucked though
It wasn't really democratic, but all US Presidents until Harrison/Tyler were good
De Gaulle
Pompidour
D'Estaign
The first 8 presidents of the US were pretty great, outside Polk and McKinley, the remaining 36 have been questionable
where they pretty great or was leading america back then just impossible to frick up?
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
>the trilogy that should have ended but got bought out by some multi-billion-dollar company to make endless sequels
McKinley-Roosevelt-Taft-Wilson were all great presieents in their own respects.
Democracy doesn’t advertise itself as being good, just “good enough”
I can argue that large strings of leaders in many countries have been “ok” which is sometimes better than having two great and one terrible monarch.
It's not necessarily good enough, just stable. It's a reflection of the nation itself.
For example, in a dead and decaying civilization such as our own, we can only ever expect dead and decaying leaders (i.e. Joe Biden).
A dictator, on the other hand, can rise above the decadence and corruption in a way that an elected official simply cannot.
I agree, but the issue with dictatorship is always succession
Few dictators have ever managed to handle it well, even Caesar got lucky that his chosen namesake was so capable, and even then he had nothing really set in place to enable a new government.
Compare that to someone like Mao who was able to sweep the field not once but multiple times in order to ensure there would be no bickering after he was gone.
That's where the sword of Damocles comes into play.
The list of notable dictators is self-sorting because, in general, incompetent leaders are unable to hold on to power long enough to do much harm.
But what happens when the dictator dies?
Another good question would be how many dictators have been succeeded by an era of peace and continuation of the government (and were not assassinated)?
From what I can recall, maybe Sulla, Franco, Mao, Stalin, chang kai shek, Kim Il Sung, Mugabe,
Has there ever been a single head of state in history who was unquestionably good?
Yeah, many. Saint Justinian, Bismarck, Stalin, Charlemagne, Richelieu, FD Roosevelt, Cao Cao, Napoleon, Caesar, Charles de Gaulle, Ghaddafi,...
Caesar Agustus
Edward, Elizabeth, James
Elizabeth being an unquestionably good queen is a hot take.
Her killing the Queen of Scots is one of her most remembered actions
No such thing as unquestionably good. Don't believe in such things and accept the reality of harsh pragmatism and despotism that is your world.
unquestionably good = the reign was a net positive to its nation. plenty of clear examples of this
As far as serving the Mongols, would Genghis and his successors through Kublai count?
Portugal:
>D. Afonso III
>D. Dinis
>D. Afonso IV
The tfirst three kings were also all good
george v, george vi, elizabeth ii
Harald V of Norway
Olav V of Norway
Haakon VII of Norway
easy
Pepin of Herstal - Charles Martel - Pepin the Short - Charlemagne
Nikephoros Phokas - John Tsimiskes - Basil II
Philippe Auguste - Louis the Lion - St. Louis
>Pepin of Herstal - Charles Martel
Not kings
Harun al-Rashid, Al-Ma'mun, Al-Mu'tasim
>Al-Mu'tasim
no
henry the fowler
otto I
otto II
Otto 2 is seen negatively in german history.
There are even famous poems talking shit about the poor guy.
>Gustav II Adolf
>Karl X Gustav
>Karl XI
Alexios Komnenos, John Komnenos, Manuel Komnenos
But I thought kings were representant of God on earth, what did monerchygays mean by this? Aren't all kings good by definition? Are you telling me they are just regular men who can be good or bad? Why are they kings then?
just because they're representatives of god doesnt mean they're good representatives of god.
they're kings for reasons other than the expectation of perfection. when the world was run by philosophers and warriors, they aspired to different goals.
presidents do nothing for a few years and then run off with the country's money. they're most celebrated and memorable when they act like kings. see FDR, Abraham Lincoln, and Obama.
I'm more of a dictator man myself. People like Napoleon, Caesar or Hitler are the only legitimate rulers in my eyes. In order to have power you should be able to seize it, and do something with it. I still don't understand how your moronic hereditary system is any better than democracy.
i'm not a monarchist, i'm just defending it because your reasons for disliking it are dishonest and fallacious.
Not what you asked, but it's surprisingly common in history to have a great king, followed by an okay king, followed by a terrible king. Like,
>Louis IX -> Philip III -> Philip IV
>Henry II -> Richard I -> John
>Ivan III -> Vasily III -> Ivan IV
And so on.
All of those were great.
Nor will I!!!
Liuva I, Liuvigild, Reccared I
Chindasuinth, Recceswinth, Wamba
Rome has never had a bad emperor, only a bad republican leader (consulcucks).
Ottoman empire
Mehmet I
Murad II
Mehmet II
Bayezid II
Selim I
Suleiman I
Mary
Elizabeth
James